It is proposed to take Nos. 4, 8, 9 and 10. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: (1) No. 4 shall be decided without debate; (2) the proceedings on Report and Final Stages of No. 8, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 7 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair——
Order of Business.
It is difficult to hear the Taoiseach.
——and which shall in relation to amendments include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for the Environment; (3) in the case of the resumed debate on No. 10, the speech of each Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes. Private Members' Business shall be No. 15, motion 5.
I understood that item No. 4 was being withdrawn, because there was no agreement on this proposal in regard to the Foreign Affairs Committee at the Whips' meetings. If that is not the case, I oppose the taking of No. 4 at this time. It would be far more fruitful if agreement could be reached on the terms of the motion before it is put before the House. In the event of no agreement being reached it is inappropriate that it be put before the House without debate.
We too wish to oppose the taking of this matter. We were informed a short time ago that it was being removed from the Order of Business today. We oppose the taking of this motion because the terms of reference are far too restrictive. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will be required to attend the committee only when it is considering a Bill or an Estimate. There have been three Foreign Affairs Bills only in the last five years; therefore, effectively the Minister would never be there. We are opposed also to debates on Northern Ireland being held in private. That is not appropriate. While it would be appropriate that the committee could decide from time to time to hold a debate in private, it should not be required to hold all debates on Northern Ireland in private. The Progressive Democrats' Party is opposed to taking this motion for those reasons. It is also opposed to agreeing to the establishment of this committee without a debate in the House when the terms of reference have not been agreed by all parties.'
I concur with the points made by my colleague on this matter. I was informed immediately prior to the Order of Business that item No. 4 was being withdrawn. I checked with the relevant office on this matter and was given an assurance that this was so. Obviously there is a lack of communication on this issue. I can assure the House that the fault does not lie with me because I double-checked the matter. I reiterate that our objection to the terms of reference of the committee is based on our wish to have them agreed unanimously.
The Deputy has made her point.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please, the Chair is making an address to the House. It is usual at this time to hear the spokespersons for the Opposition parties. I hope I have not created a precedent by calling Deputy Helen Keogh.
It should be noted that this is an expediency motion, a declaration of intent to set up a foreign affairs committee. As the Fine Gael Chief Whip, I have to say that this matter was discussed in considerable detail at the Whips' meetings and, in fairness, consent was given by the Government on matters such as MEPs having the right to attend meetings of the committee as it will deal with Council of Europe reports, the CSCE and Northern Ireland. There may be objections by the Department of Foreign Affairs to discussing security and political matters in public, but we would prefer to see the committee up and running. I repeat that this is an expediency motion, a statement of intent to set up the committee; it is not an establishment motion. Deputies who object to the motion at this stage will have an opportunity between the expediency motion and the establishment motion to discuss the matter further.
Deputy Enda Kenny is correct. In an effort to be helpful to the other Deputies I should say that item No. 4 referred to in contacts with my office related to a paragraph 4 in a previous draft of the Order of Business which was withdrawn. I apologise for any confusion which has arisen.
Can I put the question?
On a——
Sorry Deputy, we cannot debate the matter now.
On a point of clarification in regard to what we are being asked to agree, Deputy Enda Kenny suggested that this is merely an expediency motion. Are the terms of reference of the committee not being carried also with the expediency motion? By agreeing the expediency motion, we are, therefore, agreeing the terms of reference. Is that the case?
They will come before the House again.
Those are the terms of reference at present, but the Whips are still discussing them and if changes have to be made they can be made when the committee is being established. There will be a debate in the House immediately after the Easter recess on all of these committees.
May I ask the Taoi-seach——
We must not tend to debate, Deputy.
Given the size of the Government's majority in the House, it is very important that there is support by the Opposition for the establishment of these committees and that there is agreement. The Programme for Government states that the hallmark of the Government will be openness and accountability. There is neither openness nor accountability in the manner in which this committee is being established. I ask the Taoiseach to think again on this matter. Perhaps the Whips could meet this evening to try to reach agreement.
The Whips will meet this evening, but this procedure was agreed last week.
I am putting the question in respect of item No. 4.
Question, "That item No. 4 be decided without debate" put and declared carried.
Are the proposals for dealing with No. 8 satisfactory? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 10 satisfactory? Agreed.
Is the Taoiseach in a position to make a comprehensive statement on the action the Government proposes to take arising from the Supreme Court decision in regard to a prosecution concerning angel dust, in view of its implications for a whole range of Government legislation and the Government's legislative programme if confirmatory legislation has to be introduced in respect of all the orders made since 1972? Has the Taoiseach made any provision at this stage to prepare the necessary legislation for that purpose and, if so, when will it be introduced? What are the implications of the current legal limbo for the enforcement of existing regulations?
I wish to inform the Deputy and the House that, as outlined in the Government's statement today, there is an appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court on 1 April 1993 in the case of Meagher v. the Minister for Agriculture and Food whereby part of section 3 (2) of the European Communities Act, 1972, was declared to be unconstitutional. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry brought before the Government today a draft Bill dealing with the part of that decision relating to animal diseases. This Bill will be introduced in the House immediately after the Easter recess. The other fundamental issues are being appealed to the Supreme Court. The Attorney General and all the relevant Government Departments are analysing the position should the Supreme Court decision not be fully, or partly, in the Government's favour so that appropriate action can be taken when required.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the High Court judgment was to the effect that this House had not been doing its job, so to speak, since 1972? Even if the Government's appeal to the Supreme Court is successful we should take on board that finding with a view to ensuring that more of the regulations made by the Government are approved in some fashion by this House or a committee of this House rather than made simply by executive order. We need to take this point into account in the overall reform of Dáil procedures so that we have a process which ensures that this sort of challenge cannot be made again.
The original challenge related to regulations made on foot of Acts which were found by the judge concerned to be unconstitutional. That aspect of doing business was unconstitutional. There are other aspects of the judgment which are not very clear as yet. Be that as it may, what I said last week still holds today, that is, the best way the House can approach its business in future in this regard is through the operation of the standing committees of this House. These committees will give us the opportunity to deal with European Directives in a better manner in future. Of course, I am not prejudging the finding of the Supreme Court in relation to the overall position.
May I ask the Taoiseach if the decision announced today by the Attorney General in relation to the Tallaght Two was the decision of the Government? Will he say why the Attorney General made this announcement when the decision in the Nicky Kelly case was communicated to the public by the then Minister for Justice?
That matter is hardly one for the Order of Business.
It is important that we know whether it is a Government decision.
The Deputy will have to raise the matter in another way. I call Deputy Jim Mitchell.
Arising from the earlier discussion on the expediency motion in relation to the foreign affairs committee and his remarks on the future role of the committees, can the Taoiseach tell the House when it is proposed to introduce legislation dealing with the compellability and privilege of witnesses?
The legislation is being prepared at present and it will be introduced as soon as it is ready.
I call Deputy Pat Rabbitte.
It is in course of preparation for the past five years.
May I ask the Taoiseach if it is hoped to have this legislation enacted before the summer recess so as to allow the committees to do their job properly?
As I said, the legislation will be introduced in the House as soon as possible.
My question has to do with promised legislation, specifically legislation on alleged miscarriages of justice. I note that in respect of the decision on the Tallaght Two the Attorney General offered an alternative solution which seems incapable of performance since the legislation promised has not yet been brought before the House. How does the Taoiseach purport that it is fair for the two affected youths to have an alternative remedy offered to them when that mechanism is not there yet? When is it proposed to bring the legislation in question before the House?
It is proposed to introduce it in the next session and so ensure that the two people concerned will have the opportunity of an alternative remedy.
In respect of the Programme for a Partnership Government, is it the intention of the Taoiseach and his Government to make a comprehensive statement to this House on the policy objectives of our participation in the Western European Union? I note that yesterday a security function was conferred on the Western European Union and that Ireland participated in that to some degree. Will the Taoiseach make a statement on the matter? Finally, let me observe that I welcome yet another total about turn by the Tánaiste, who has totally changed the view he had when in Opposition. I am glad to see that he is now prepared to participate.
That does not arise now.
Is the Taoiseach aware that, arising from the High Court decision on 1 April, there is now a question over environmental impact statements which are part of the planning process and they were also handed down by way of a ministerial letter to the local authorities? Could the Taoiseach have an examination of that lest planning permissions which have been given on foot of environmental impact statements are no longer valid?
An examination is being carried out in that regard.
It is very urgent.
Arising out of the refusal of the Ceann Comhairle to accept a Private Notice Question, let me ask the Taoiseach on the Order of Business if he intends to make Government time available to allow the Minister for Health make a statement on how last Wednesday he could ask the Dáil to approve an increase in health charges and, 48 hours later, announce to a party conference that the matter is under review?
That is out of order.
The Deputy will have to find another way of raising that.
(Interruptions.)
I intended to raise the matter by way of questions in the House. Perhaps the Taoiseach might offer a response.
The fact that the Deputy is out of order does not mean that I am going to be out of order.
(Interruptions.)
Arising from the decision of the High Court last Thursday and in view of the importance of all EC directives and their impact on the daily lives of ordinary people, does the Taoiseach agree that it is important that those directives should be properly scrutinised and validated by the Houses of the Oireachtas? Would he consider it necessary to establish a new European Affairs Committee to deal with that rather than have it absorbed into the Foreign Affairs Committee?
That is not appropriate on the Order of Business.
It is very pertinent. We are talking about the establishment of a new Oireachtas committee to deal with legislation in this House. Will the Taoiseach consider the establishment of a new committee to evaluate and scrutinise these matters?
The Deputy has had quite a deal of leeway. I am calling Deputy Martin Cullen.
I tried to raise the matter of the dispute now occurring in Iarnrod Éireann by way of question. At the time it was ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle on the grounds that it was a small localised matter. Since then the trade union involved has announced that there could potentially be chaos in public transport over this bank holiday weekend. I would ask the Taoiseach if he will, therefore, make time available for the Minister for Transport to make a statement on this matter as there are now many concerned people.
Again, the Deputy will find a better way to raise that matter.
It is extremely urgent that this be dealt with this evening.
The Deputy has had some scope.
I want to ask the Taoiseach about legislation which was promised at the time the Office of Public Works Bill was rushed through the Dáil. We were promised that legislation would be brought in to provide for planning controls on State agencies and local authorities and also to provide for accountability. At the moment there is nothing in place. I wonder if the Taoiseach would advise us when this legislation will be introduced. Will it bring national parks under some kind of management to regularise that situation also?
As the Deputy is aware, I answered this question before. This matter is the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court. In the meantime the Minister for the Environment is carrying out a full examination in relation to it. However, we must await the decision of the Supreme Court before proceeding on this matter.
With all due respect, I think the Taoiseach may not be aware that there are two separate issues. One relates to interpretative centres, which is the subject of a case in the Supreme Court. The other relates to the Bill which was rushed through here, regardless of the fact that we are awaiting the Supreme Court decision, and that has opened up a situation where there is absolutely no accountability on the part of any State agency in regard to development. We were promised this legislation at the time, regardless of the Supreme Court decision.
That part of the Deputy's question does not relate to promised legislation.
It does, and I am not getting an answer from the Taoiseach on it.
I have already answered.
The Taoiseach has not answered. He is avoiding the issue. He does not seem to know what his own Department is supposed to be doing.
The Deputy has had quite a deal of leeway now.
In the programme for Government of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats a juvenile justice Bill was promised.
(Interruptions.)
This legislation on juvenile justice would definitely apply to Deputy Cowen. He qualifies on grounds of age and behaviour.
Are we talking about legislation promised in the current Dáil that is relevant to the Order of Business?
This legislation was then promised on 7 May 1992, on 14 October 1992 and, in this Dáil, on 11 March 1993. When will this Bill, which is now two Governments old, be introduced in view of the fact that there are many young people who are a threat to their neighbours and other young people for whom there is no secure place? Will the Taoiseach agree that in this area we are still relying on legislation dating from 1908?
I am well aware that it was mentioned in March. The other programme the Deputy spoke about died with the last Government. It is expected to introduce this legislation mid-year.
This year or next year? Will it be in 1993?
Is the expression "mid-year" new terminology?
I observe in the documents laid before the Dáil today that we have the annual report of the Irish Racing Board. Is this a rapid response to the fiasco at Aintree last Saturday? Is there any truth in the rumour that the Irish Racing Board from this "backward little country" has been asked to take over the running of next year's Grand National?